Iran, more than most, is a country that knows the repercussions of uprisings. It was less than a half century ago that the current theocratic system was set up. Since then, Iran has become accustomed to periodic protests, but there is something unique about the current unrest.
The unrest has led to 22 fatalities and has spread across 80 cities. So far 1000 individuals have been arrested, many of whom are students.
There are three trends which really underpin what is happening in Iran. Firstly, the uprisings come at a time when Iran’s rivalry with Saudi Arabia is frothing all over the Middle East. Secondly, the United States is facing global isolation and is unable to muster the same unity in calling out Iran for its actions.
Thirdly, the economy is flailing in a trend that is exacerbated by pre-existing sanctions. This mix of external and internal factors make the situation volatile and the entire Middle East is set to be affected by its outcome.
Iran’s turbulent start to 2018 would have come as music to the ears of Saudi’s ruling family. The last year has seen heightened activity in the countries’ proxy wars. Most recently, the Lebanese Prime Minister was forcibly summoned to Saudi Arabia and made to resign on Saudi television. His crime was that he had allowed Hezbollah, an Iran backed Shia organisation to gain support within Lebanon and had endorsed pro-Iranian candidates for the Presidency above members of his own Sunni political party.
Such a grandstand comes after a year where Iranian supported militias have been fighting in Syria as well as in Yemen, where a former President was killed by Iranian backed Houthi rebels for defecting to Saudi supported forces. These protests become all the more important as the balance of the entire region comes into question.
The United States is used to galvanising a reasonable amount of cooperation when it comes to condemning the Iranian government. That was before Trump. Now, the international community is much more willing to distance itself from the United States, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Emmanuel Macron has openly criticised the, previously clandestine alliance between Saudi Arabia, Israel and America for political opportunism when it comes to unrest within Iran.
UN Security Council members dismissed the emergency meeting called by the United States in regard to the Iranian uprisings, the French Ambassador even said that “they do not constitute a threat to international peace and security.”
It’s clear that the protests are unlikely going to cause the international pressure required to initiate regime change, largely because many western politicians have learnt (the hard way) that regime change is not a ‘quick fix’ to deeprooted issues, as Emily Thornberry articulated this week.
Countries are using the Trump presidency to display bolder rhetoric too. Not only does this play better at home, but many governments are distancing themselves from their close ties with the United States. This was noticeable in the last months when there was an, almost unanimous rejection of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the General Assembly.
Moreover, Trump used his first tweet of 2018 to blast Pakistan, a questionable but, nevertheless, long standing ally of the United States. Pakistan’s political and military class has responded with similarly heavy rhetoric in return.
During the UN Security Council’s emergency session, several countries also chose to outline the United States’ long and colourful history of popular protests from protests against from those opposing the Vietnam War to the Black Lives Matter movement.
There is little enthusiasm for intervention in Iran, China’s UN Ambassador went as far as to say the US’ actions didn’t help anyone.
Finally, we have to acknowledge that Iran is a country that is being suffocated by economic constraints. Some are exogenous, like the intense sanctions, but others are home grown.
There is no doubt that protesters’ demands for less corruption and increased civil liberties are legitimate. It is frustrating for the younger generation, which has an abundance of human capital to be met with an inhospitable job market, less educational opportunities than the previous generation and limited ways to leave the country. In 2009, the previous wave of protests, were largely focussed on cities.
However, this time around many rural communities are joining the protests and are affected by the 13% unemployment across the country. The current protests are unlikely to unseat this government, but the regime must show reform to quell any more fatal threats in the future. Iran is, for its supporters, one of the last powers to pose a legitimate opposition to US domination in the region. To its detractors, it remains an archaic and autocratic regime.
What is certain is that Iran remains crucial to the balance of power within the region and its instability could cause a significant power shift that would affect several countries.
Protests in Iran shine a light on the international stance in the Middle East
Alastair Campbell: the convictions of a spin doctor
Alastair Campbell receives more media bids per week than I could count. He burst into British public life back in the 1990s, as the most senior member of Tony Blair’s government not sitting in the House of Commons. In his role as Downing Street press secretary and later director of communications, his straight talking style and taste for creative profanity earned Campbell something of a reputation. His manner in government was famously parodied when Peter Capaldi played Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It. So why has this titan of British politics agreed to take an interview with the editor of a modest student newspaper? “Because I think it’s really important for people to stay angry. It’s important that students stay angry. Your future is being taken away from you.”
When I was born, New Labour was settling into its second year of government. Firmly ensconced in Downing Street, Campbell spent his days effing, jeffing, and keeping the red boat afloat. All of that took its toll, and the pressure would have broken many. But now, years later, he appears to our generation not as a vicious Machiavel, but rather as one of the few people willing to stand up to the government on Brexit. I ask him about this reinvention of sorts. Has Campbell’s fear of Brexit brought him back into the spotlight? “I don’t think I ever left,” he snaps back.
It’s true that the abounding energy which saw him tear through the Labour party hierarchy hasn’t dimmed. Alongside editing The New European, interviewing a whole cast of notables for GQ, and appearing regularly on our television screens arguing with any right-winger who’s brave enough, Campbell has just released the seventh volume of his diaries. Though he has been written off by both the left and right as an unprincipled triangulator, this so called ‘master of spin’ has a surprising sense of duty, telling me “I worry I don’t do enough.”
Where his old boss Tony Blair has retired to the pursuit of international charity work, making sparse interventions in UK politics, we still see Campbell in his favourite rough and tumble environment, on Question Time, Newsnight, and ITV’s Good Morning Britain. On that breakfast TV sofa he often fights a war on two fronts, making the case for Britain in Europe against Nigel Farage, whilst fending off professional nuisance Piers Morgan. Of the latter, Blair said: “a slug, but… clever”. Morgan, like Campbell, is a man of strong opinions and a remain voter, but whereas he has sacrificed his conviction for the sake of being in the majority, Campbell is happy in the vocal minority.
Despite the brutish front pages that so-called ‘continuity remainers’ like Campbell and the Tory rebels have been battered with, he is resilient: “the right-wing press will do their worst, they always do. But if you believe in something, say it.” This mantra has guided him to a more radical position on Brexit than many Labour MPs, and he calls his current political home “the angry camp”. He believes he is joined there by “the people who seem to share this sense of frustration, the people feeling politically homeless.” So should his party, Labour, be providing sanctuary for them? On this question, he initially tows the line, declaring “Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party.” But he elaborates on his latent uneasiness about the leadership’s current position on Europe: “there isn’t much difference between what the government is offering and what the opposition is offering. It’s difficult for Labour MPs to stand out against that.” Despite his sympathy for them, if Campbell was in parliament now I sense he would be far less pigeon-hearted on Brexit: “it’s difficult for me to take lessons in loyalty and three line whippery from Corbyn and McDonnell, because they voted against what we were trying to do.”
The emphasis on ‘we’ is mine; resisting the metamorphosis of the British left over the past few years, Campbell still appears to see the Labour party as an ‘us and them’ coalition, or a “broad church” as some euphemistically term it. Corbyn and friends are on one side, with Campbell and the New Labour disciples on another. The anguished struggle of these two groups to get along has been exacerbated by Europe, the greatest issue of the day which unfortunately divides them down the middle. Wracked with suspicion, many in the parliamentary Labour party are more certain that Theresa May voted remain than Corbyn. It is some tragedy that the issue on which Labour moderates yearn to be so radical – Europe – is one on which Corbyn speaks with such bland orthodoxy. Campbell’s frustration at the Labour leader is clear: “the ones shouting loudest for Brexit are the hard right, and the one thing Jeremy Corbyn has always stood for is being against the right!”
Yet he still sees an opportunity for reconciliation, remarking: “we’ve got to be tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit.” This rhetorical flourish, with its omitted connective and repeated call to be ‘tough’, puts me in mind of a few other third way clichés, notably Blair’s conference speech: “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” But despite the slight throwback to the nineties, the crux of Campbell’s argument is fresh and relevant: “it can’t just be about saying ‘let’s stop Brexit’. You have to address all the policy areas that led people to want to vote leave – immigration, inequality, education, globalisation. The question is, will Brexit provide the answer to that? No.” Though he dresses up the ‘Stop Brexit’ position in the sound bite of a moderate, Campbell’s real plan seems to be radical change, not in our relationship with Europe, but in domestic politics. Though he is still no Corbynite, I ask him to reflect on whether New Labour really did enough. “Did we win the argument that Britain’s future was in Europe? Clearly not. Think about the NHS. It’s cemented in the national life in a way that Britain as a member of the European Union has not been cemented. We were at times too timid.”
Like another famous Blair acolyte, Peter Mandelson, Campbell was more than sceptical about the remain arguments being pushed by David Cameron and George Osborne: “‘Project Fear’ wasn’t a sensible way to campaign.” In the event of a second referendum, or a “fresh referendum” as Campbell insists I should refer to it, would a radical manifestobe needed to make the country think again? He says: “leadership is about confronting the people with reality. I think that a second referendum is winnable.” Many remainers can sympathise with this sentiment, but given the reaction of the press and some parts of the country to one Tory rebellion on the EU withdrawal bill in December, many also worry that a “fresh referendum” would soon turn stale, and tear the UK asunder. Perhaps the prospect of further division is the reason why the nation’s most famous political arsonist, Nigel Farage, came out in support of a second referendum on Thursday.
Campbell muses on the prospect for a moment: “there would be a price to pay, but I’ve never seen the country more divided than now. Addressing the causes of Brexit, you’d have a better chance of bringing the country together around that, rather than around whatever Theresa May’s trying to do at the moment.” I ask Campbell, if he could return to Downing Street as chief of spin for just one day, what would he tell the Prime Minister to do? “She should make the speech I wrote for her,” he playfully refers to a mock declaration he wrote in The New European, where May revokes Article 50. “She looks tortured, and I think that’s because she knows the country is in decline. It’s just a game of survival now isn’t it?” He repeats the widely held belief that this is a government nearing its end. And though we began our conversation on the understanding that Campbell currently has no political home, it seems that if Corbyn is willing to get riled up about Europe, he is only one policy u-turn away from bringing Campbell and millions of other disgruntled remainers on board.
Though I’ve always thought the term a bit of a joke, perhaps the ‘radical centre’ does exist. It’s just that the punctuation is all wrong. It is not one position, but two working together. The ‘radical-centre’ alliance of both sides might yet bring an end to Brexit.
Let’s talk about: mental health on screen
For most of the 21st century so far, things have been looking up for mental health: more research has been done in the last ten years than ever before, and the recognition that 1 in 4 of us will experience some form of mental illness has put our mental health firmly on the political agenda.
With all this, it wouldn’t be too idealistic to assume that we’re more aware than ever of the complicated nature of mental illness. Unfortunately, we’re not doing as well as it might appear. Look no further than that beloved bastion of British teen culture – Skins – which continues its influence more than 10 years after first airing. As teenagers struggling with body image, Cassie and Effie, the yin and yang of ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girls’, were intoxicatingly accessible images of how pretty it was to be crazy. Lines like “I didn’t eat for three days so that I could be lovely”, were perfect soundbites, easily extracted and scribed into the backs of diaries.
Yet despite it’s seemingly ubiquitous position in pop culture, it would be unfair, even inaccurate, to lay blame for this irritating character trope squarely on Channel 4. After all, everyone from Hitchcock to Tarantino to DC Comics (really, don’t get me started on Harley Quinn) seems to be in on the act of hyping up mental illness into high-octane drama. Surely there’s an argument that these representations, however inaccurate, are better than no representation at all? Well, not quite.
Imagine you’re a student living with an anxiety disorder (which some studies suggest up to 1 in 10 are). Not only are you faced with normal academic pressures – deadlines, formidable tutors and irritating tute partners to name a few – you’re also fighting the seemingly insurmountable daily battle against your own head. Then, on top of all of this, throw in the realisation that you can’t even do being mentally ill right your struggles aren’t ‘pretty’ or ‘exciting’ enough to fit the Effie shaped mould that society has prepared for you. Imagine how isolating that is. Imagine how terrifying that is.
So, why is it still so hard to have constructive conversations about mental health? And why is it that, as a society, we are so incapable of portraying mental illness without using the devil’s trifecta of Tumblr poetry – glamorisation, sexualisation and romanticisation? Fundamentally, it seems that, on the whole, we’re simply uncomfortable with the harsh realities of mental illness.
A recent YouGov poll showed that 28% of respondents said they’d feel uncomfortable asking a friend about a mental illness they’re living with. Truth is, we’re scared of the universality of this problem, scared that when all the glitter is stripped away, we’ll have to face the fact that mental illness can happen to anyone, and it can be deadly. So, instead we just skirt the issue. It’s easier, right? We dress up personality disorders as appealing and anorexia as beautiful and anyone who doesn’t fit these criteria is sidelined in pop culture, as if their experiences don’t deserve representation.
Of course we need to talk about mental health, but it’s about a lot more than just talking. We need to start recognising the unique and individual nature of mental illness. We need to start talking about its magnitude, and we need to accept that rarely will these issues cut themselves into aesthetically pleasing portions for our consumption.
Skins – and other programmes like it – are beautiful representations of mental illness, but by virtue of that beauty they’re unrealistic and, more importantly, they’re dangerous. Trying to be Cassie almost killed me, and we have a chance to strip the stigma and the stereotypes from mental illness before the same fate befalls anyone else.
Controversial ex-Union president made new universities minister
The new universities minister, Sam Gyimah, attracted controversy and criticism while studying at Oxford.
During his term as Oxford Union President, four out of his eleven committee members resigned from their posts citing both overwork and “the people who hang there”, in the words of the then Secretary.
A contemporary Union source claimed “that Gyimah’s attitude towards his staff is one of
the reasons for the resignations.”
Gyimah later caught the public eye in October 1997 when he attempted to invite Tariq Aziz,
the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister described as “the right-hand man of Saddam Hussein”, to speak at the Union.
However, the Foreign Office refused Aziz a visa and said he was not allowed to travel in Britain.
Gyimah also found himself at the centre of disputes with the student union. He was accused by its president, Simon McDougall, of giving the impression that the Oxford
Union and the student union were one and the same.
In a letter that encouraged new students to become members, the institution described itself as “the most famous student union in the world.”
Gyimah dismissed the claims, saying: “We’re central to student life. The language you employ talking about this is the language of a student union.”
He often attracted the attention of the student body in his addresses to the Union.
Cherwell reported in November 1997: “Sam Gyimah knows that (comedian) Bob Monkhouse is no good in bed.
“He slept with him. This was the revelation which failed to raise the merest titter amongst the assembled crowd.”
He also took part in a Union debate dressed in a blonde wig and a nun’s habit.
More recently, Gyimah used his platform on the BBC’s Question Time to praise Theresa
May in her refusal to endorse Donald Trump’s retweeting of the far right group, Britain First.
He said: “It takes great bravery to stand up to your enemies, it takes even more bravery to stand up to your friends.”
However, these words turned out not to be his own. Harry Potter enthusiasts soon identified the epigram as first spoken by JK Rowling’s character Albus Dumbledore.
Gyimah, an alumnus of Somerville College, today continues to help support the College’s bursary fund.
The College helped him with his own financial difficulties during his time at Oxford.
He said: “They converted my entire rent while I was there into a loan which I subsequently paid when I graduated.”
The College issued a statement congratulating Gyimah on his appointment.
They said: “Congratulations to Somerville alumnus Sam Gyimah (1995, PPE), who has
been appointed Minister for Universities and Science.”
Cellar praises ‘crucial’ bill to protect music venues
The owner of Oxford nightclub Cellar has praised a “crucial” new planning bill designed to protect music venues.
Tim Hopkins said John Spellar MP’s ‘agent-of-change’ bill “makes total sense”, after it passed to its second reading in parliament on Wednesday.
If made law, the bill’s proposals would require developers to consider the fates of pre-existing businesses before proceeding with new projects.
Hopkins, whose father opened Cellar, told Cherwell: “the bill is crucial to the survival of so many small live music venues and clubs across the country.
“It’s also very fair because it does work both ways. If a builder built next door to a venue they can’t get it shut down on account of the noise – they have to take responsibility for soundproofing their development.
“We are lucky at the Cellar: sound issues are not an issue we have to deal with. However, we do care and support this bill, because we want to support our fellow live music venues across the country.
“It is exactly what is needed when it comes to such financial drains and stresses on small venues that are – more often than not – already over stretched.”
Yesssssss! https://t.co/TJjViNYzcV
— The Cellar (@CellarOxford) 10 January 2018
The UK Music association estimates that 35% of the country’s live music venues have closed in the past decade.
The body’s chief, Michael Dugher, criticised companies who develop next to pre-existing venues. He said: “All of a sudden, the people in a block of flats are complaining about the noise of a venue.”
Oxford West and Abingdon MP Layla Moran also supported the bill, having publicly backed the ‘save Cellar’ campaign last summer.
Some 13,000 people signed a petition to keep Cellar open, after its landlords put forward a planning application to redevelop the space.
Moran said: “The idea would be to look out for existing businesses before granting planning permission.
“As a new MP at the time of the proposed closure of the Cellar, it was really encouraging to see so many people getting involved with the planning and political process for the first time in a bid to save it.
“I’m particularly glad that people power won the day.”
The club has hosted early gigs for several successful Oxford bands, including Foals and Glass Animals.
Moran, a Liberal Democrat tipped by senior party figures as their “best hope of a revival”, said the furore around Cellar led her to believe there should be “a re-think of planning policy to better protect well-loved music venues from future developments.
“This is a law designed to protect the little guy… it is designed to allow them to fight back.”
A group of MPs, peers, and musicians gathered outside parliament ahead of the bill’s reading, including Billy Bragg, Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason, and former culture minister
Ed Vaizey.
A lot to swallow: the new Westgate Centre
Walking into Westgate, as all Oxford students did for the first time last Michaelmas, it is easy for anyone to be distracted by the numerous new shops that are now easily accessible in our uni environment.
I found myself tempted to stop at various clothes shops but, of course, I could not wait to find out which new restaurants had opened. Breakfast is definitively the best part of the day – trust me. It will be too easy to spend mornings eating delicious meals at Westgate.
Whether your New Year’s Resolution is to eat healthy food, or you can’t actually be bothered to wake up in the morning to eat breakfast food, or even if all you want is some good bread and spreads, you can find all three options in one place in Oxford now.
Firstly we have Boost Juice Bar. Located on the Upper Ground Floor, neighbouring Primark, Next and John Lewis, this is the perfect place for anyone in need of a break- fast you can eat on the go.
As one might imagine from its name, Boost sells juices and smoothies. There is a suggested menu but, excitingly, you are also able to create your own custom flavour. From mango and berries, to bananas with passionfruit, the combinations are numerous.
Any budding gym lovers can choose to add ‘boosters’ to the fruity mixes, such as protein powder or ‘super fruits’ like acai and goji berry.
Some of their smoothies also include vegetables, which is perfect for anyone trying to up their intake of greens in 2018.
The aim of the juice bar, which originally started in Australia, is to provide a healthy option in shopping centres.
It is a really easy and nourishing spot, and also removes the need for you to painstakingly clean a blender yourself.
Le Pain Quotidien lives on the Lower Ground Floor of Westgate, adjacent to John Lewis. It is certainly one of the finest places for anyone who wants to catch up with a friend they haven’t seen in a while over a cup of coffee, which, like all of their hot drinks, comes in a handle-less mug, resembling a small bowl.
The ‘Le Pain’ spreads’ are certainly the highlight of any trip to this breakfast location. Every order of bread or pastries will be accompanied by various jams and spreads, and you can ask for their specialities, such as their Speculoos biscuit spread, their ‘Noisella’ hazelnut-flavoured spread, their ‘Brunette’ hazelnut and praline spread, or their ‘Blondie’ spread made from white chocolate.
The chances are that after you’ve finished your meal, you’ll sit there putting more and more spreads on your plate that you’ll eat either with breadcrumbs or just raw, chatting over your last few sips of coffee.
Whilst you might feel like you’re living the yummy mummy life – about to go to her yoga lesson before picking her children up at school – Le Pain Quotidien is definitely a great place to go to for breakfast with a groups of friends.
Finally, you’ll find The Breakfast Club on the Roof Terrace of Westgate. Their London branches are infamous for their impossibly long queues, and my experience of the Oxford branch has been no different. However, if the only hangover cure you want is is a stack of pancakes or a fry-up sometime in the mid-afternoon once you have finally managed to get out of bed, then this place is perfect for you.
To accompany their all-day brunch menu, they have lunch and dinner options, which makes it the perfect place for you to take anyone who cannot stand the thought of eating breakfast at a different time in the day (you don’t need that negativity).
And, if you really are cured of your hangover, you can try to find their secret bar…
Philosophical economists and privatised oceans
conomics is a discipline filled with jargon. Obsessed with scientific objectivity and mathematical truth, the study of the economy can sometimes seem too technical to tackle without expertise. According to Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek Finance minister during the 2015 Financial crisis: “There are no real experts, and the economy is far too important to leave to the experts.”
Talking to My Daughter About the Economy explains the theory without the jargon. Through myth, literature, and Varoufakis’ personal experience as an economist, teacher and parent, he investigates debt, trade, markets, and inequality. Varoufakis’ daughter Xenia lives in Australia, so he starts his discussion by asking why the British invaded Australia and not the other way around.
Varoufakis is primarily interested in exploring an sustainable and democratic economic model. He suggests that in the wake of environmental degradation and ecological destruction the next eras of human existence will be typified by a clash between an urge to “commodify everything” and to “democratize everything”; Varoufakis envisages a world in which the oceans and the forests and the atmosphere are privately owned by large groups of people, to safeguard them for the future.
A central point Varoufakis argues is that Western societies have become overly dominated by their markets; no longer do our civil structures contain marketplaces, but markets have become the driving forces behind our social structures and lifestyles, which has generated, in Varoufakis’ view, deep inequality. He traces this change from the start of the Industrial Revolution to today.
The consequence of a society dominated by markets is that societies value the exchange value of goods and services more than their experiential value. For a market society,a forest fire is a good thing; trees have no exchange value but the water and helicopters used do.
Varoufakis’ political and economic opinions are progressive, but this book is persuasive and clear. With examples and analogies as far reaching as Mephistopheles and debt, Oedipus and prophesies, and Prisoner of War camps in the Second World War, Varoufakis seeks to reimagine economic education to make it more accessible and humane. What Varoufakis is really interested in doing is reinventing the study of economics; in his view, economics is really a form of philosophy, and not a verifiable science. Economics investigates human behaviour; with all it’s mathematical models and technicality, economics can’t predict the future and the discipline would benefit, he argues, if experts stopped pretending they were oracles of wisdom and truth. While economists would lose a lot of power if this shift were to take place, they would, according to Varoufakis, stop making mistakes for which they are ultimatly responible
Restoring the silenced voices in Wide Sargasso Sea
Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea is a novel that was written as a prequel to Jane Eyre, 120 years after Brontë’s work was originally published in 1847. Both texts can be viewed as feminist works, yet the notion of womanhood differs drastically in each. Although both novels also heavily criticise male control over the female experience, Rhys adds in the dimension of racial oppression pertinent to Victorian Britain. We can see this revisionism present in modern day feminism. Rhys’ novel invites us to question how linked issues of race and gender are – this concept of ‘intersectionality’ is a source of great contention between schools of feminism.
Jane Eyre traces the journey of the eponymous heroine, and provides a social critique for the repression and obstacles that restricted women in Victorian Britain. We are fl eetingly presented with the mixed-race character Bertha, who serves as the protagonist in Wide Sargasso Sea. Although Brontë largely conceals her in Jane Eyre, a modern reading allows us to view her as the principal victim of the cultural oppression that Jane alludes to. Bertha is deprived of a voice in Jane Eyre, but Rhys seeks to restore that voice in Wide Sargasso Sea.
The respective plots of the novels revolve around the female experience in relation to societal repression, much of which manifests itself through Rochester. He is an expression of the Victorian patriarchy, and his attempts to control both Bertha and Jane are reflections of the stifling environment of Brontë’s era.
In Rhys’ novel we are presented with the story behind Rochester’s marriage to Antoinette, later to be known as Bertha, who is of creole heritage. Rhys depicts her as an intermediate between black and white. As the daughter of a slave owner and his slave, Antoinette experiences an identity crisis, compounded by poverty and bullying as a child. Rochester never loves her, yet marries her for a £30,000 dowry. This seems to represent Britain’s soulless relationship with its colonies in the Victorian era, and the compression of her personality by both misogyny and imperialism subsequently leads to the severe deterioration of her mental state. The disparity between the novels is that in Wide Sargasso Sea, Antoinette is a victim. In Jane Eyre, however, she is bound to a chair and locked away in the attic.
Whilst Antoinette is portrayed as mentally unstable in both novels, Rhys’ work is more aligned with modern ideas of mental health, and Rochester’s disregard for the causes of his wife’s discontent can be considered emblematic of the current failings of mental healthcare.
He is portrayed as a convinced manifestation of white male privilege in both books, but Rhys’ reading is starker with his colonialist disdain for her difference; Antoinette’s curly hair, distinct English diction, and different mannerisms enrage her husband.
Many laud Rhys as a pioneer for highlighting the discomfort of the British when confronted with social difference, and it is interesting to note that she was writing as a contemporary to the climate of Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. Wide Sargasso Sea presents a more fluid concept of what it means to be a woman, and provides a more modern insight into the many layers of oppression suffered by Antoinette, including patriarchy and colonialism. Feminist commentators have added that the novel was a necessary addition to Jane Eyre, in the same way that modern feminists suggest that feminism must draw on various oppressions such as racism and classism to truly create a holistic image.
The best illustration of this dynamic is when Rochester imposes the more English name ‘Bertha Mason’ onto his wife, in place of the more florid ‘Antoinette’.
This is an example of how Antoinette’s individuality is such a threat to Rochester that he has to reshape her identity so that he can feel at ease: a kind of censorship of her difference.
As with all great works, Wide Sargasso Sea has many echoes relevant today. We cannot view feminism as a binary struggle between male power and female disenfranchisement – there are several facets of such dynamics.
The case study of Antoinette also serves as an example of the complexity of mental health. At the end of Jane Eyre, she sets Rochester’s house alight and commits suicide: a potent way of describing the dangers of mishandling mental health.
Reimagining the Ordinary
This week, Amber Sidney- Woollett explores the work environment by restructuring dark space, whilst Georgia Heneage uses expressive brush strokes and texture to add new depth to familiar scenes. Meanwhile, the work of Anna Mujahid questions reinvention as she seeks to realistically portray friendly faces.
Union announces majority-female term card
The Oxford Union has released its Hilary term card, which promises a host of influential names and introduces a new ‘Women’s Leadership Speaker’ series.
Just over 50 per cent of all speaking participants are female, compared to just 21 per cent in Michaelmas term.
Of the 75 guests at the Union, 18 identify as BME, which is an 11 per cent point increase from previous president Chris Zabilowicz’s term.
The speakers include Oscar-winning Hollywood actress and activist Whoopi Goldberg.
Joining her is Saturday Night Live actor Alec Baldwin, currently filming the latest Mission Impossible film. Baldwin was recently criticised after his comments on the #MeToo campaign.
The founding president of Google China, Kai-Fu Lee, will speak at the Union in first week.
Prominent American conservative commentator Ann Coulter, North Korean defector Hyeonseo Lee, and Amnesty International Secretary-General Salil Shetty will also deliver talks.
Among the seven women making up the new ‘Women’s Leadership Speaker’ series are former President of Kosovo, Atifete Jahjaga, as well as UN health advocate, Dr Alaa
Murabit, and British Fashion Council Chief Executive, Caroline Rush CBE.
From the sports and entertainment world, Olympic sailor Sir Ben Ainslie CBE, Spice Girl Mel B, and DJ duo The Chainsmokers all feature.
This Hilary term at the Union will also see notable partnerships with Oxford societies. In association with OU LGBT+ Society, the Union will welcome trans rights activist Gavin Grimm, who last year took a case about transgender bathrooms to the US Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Oxford University Islamic Society have teamed up with the Union to host a panel discussion on ‘Islam and Politics’ in 4th week, which includes a former Director -General of Al-Jazeera.
Such panel discussions are a new feature of the Hilary line-up. In fifth week, a panel including the President of NARAL Pro-Choice America will discuss the need for abortion reform.
A discussion on whistleblowing includes a Guardian journalist who covered the release of the Snowdon papers, and a Wikileaks Administrator. It will take place in seventh week.
In her welcome message, new Union president Laali Vadlamani wrote: “It is in diversity that we find strength.
“The advent of globalisation means that we are more aware than ever before of the issues that affect even the most remote corners of the world. We can no longer simply sit by
and watch.”
Speaking about the Women’s Leadership Speaker series, Vadlamani wrote: “Leading an institution which was founded at a time when women were not even allowed to enrol for
degrees at the University does, at times, feel rather surreal, but it is only through discussing the issues that women face that we can hope to further these incredible voices, and what they represent.”
In the weekly debate listings, the Union will discuss the Partition of India and whether tech empires threaten society. In first week, members will debate whether celebrity icons have corrupted feminist movements. By fifth week debaters will tackle the proposition that Westminster’s concerns do not extend beyond the Home Counties.
46% of external debaters are female, while 20% identify as BME, both increases on Michaelmas 2017.
The growth in female and BME involvement in the Union’s calendar for Hilary 2018 follows Cherwell’s report on the society’s mainly white male term card in Michaelmas.
At the time, Oxford SU’s then VP for Women, Katy Haigh, said the institution “should surely have adequate power and resources to engage a more diverse range of speakers.”
The debates for this term, in full, are as follows:
- This House believes celebrity icons have corrupted feminist movements
- This House believes democracies should never ally with authoritarian regimes
- This House believes the rise of tech empires threatens society
- This House believes we cannot thrive without religion
- This House believes Westminster’s concerns do not extend beyond the home counties
- This House regrets blaming Wall Street for the global financial crisis
- This House regrets the partition of India
- Head to Head: Is NHS reform needed?
The speakers in first week will be Jamie Roberts, Twinkle Khanna, Alec Baldwin and Kai-Fu Lee.
The full release is expected on the Union’s website later today, and physical copies of the term card will be out on Wednesday.
Who’s speaking
Alec Baldwin
Having been an actor on television, film and stage for almost 30 years, Alec Baldwin is one of the most well-known figures in the indus
try. He is the male performer with the most Screen Actors’ Guild Awards ever, and in recent years has received worldwide attention for his portrayal of Donald Trump in Saturday Night Live. He is currently filming his role in the latest Mission: Impossible film. He has also recently been embroiled into political controversy of his comments about the #MeToo campaign.
He will be speaking on Friday, 19th January, at 4pm.
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is an American conservative social and political commentator. She rose toprominence in the 1990s as an outspoken critic of the Clinton Administration, and has more recently become one of PresidentTrump’s most 
notable supporters. She describes herself as a polemicist who like to “stir up the pot” and “does not pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.”Coulter has vehemently defended her beliefs in twelve best-selling books, including her recent works Adios, America! and In Trump We Trust.
She will be speaking on Monday, 12th February, at 5pm.
Whoopi Goldberg
An actor, author, comedian, television host, and human rights activist, Whoopi Goldberg is one of the few entertainers to win an Emmy Award, Tony Award, Grammy Award and Oscar. In a career spanning over three decades, Goldberg has been famed for roles in The Color Purple and Sister Act, as well as as hosting the popular daytime talk show, The View. She has stood by Cyndi Lauper in the Give a Damn campaign, combatting discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, as well as having co-founded andhosted Comic Relief in the US.
She will be speaking on Saturday, 24th February, at 12 noon.
Glenn Close
Notable for her performances in the films The Big Chill, Fatal Attraction and as Cruella 
Deville in 101 Dalmatians, Close hassix Academy Award nominations to her name. She also starred in the drama series Damages, winning a Golden Globe and two Emmy Awards. As a passionate campaigner for gay marriage, women’s rights and mental health awareness, Glenn is the founder of BringChange2Mind and notably petitioned President Obama to pass the Excellence in Mental Health Act in 2014.
She will be speaking on Wednesay, 7th March, at 8pm.
Gavin Grimm
Shortly after he began presenting as a man whilst at high school in Virginia, USA, parents of other pupils at his school complained about him using the male bathrooms. When the school board banned Grimm from doing so, he took his case against Gloucester County School all the way up to the Supreme Court. Grimm’s bravery in the first ever trans rights case argued before that court earned him the accolade of one of TIME’s 100 for 2017.
He will be speaking on Wednesday, 21st February at 5pm.
Bryan Cranston
An American actor and director, Bryan Cranston is best known for playing Walter White in crime drama series Breaking Bad, a role for which he has won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor no fewer than four times. He was also widely praised for his portrayals of Hal in the comedy series Malcolm in the Middle, and Dr Tim Whatley in Seinfeld, and is currently starring in Network at the National Theatre. He is further known for his active campaigning against AIDS, a cause for which he raised donations at his 2014 Broadway show All the Way.
He will be speaking on Monday, 22nd January at 1pm.
Mesut Ozil
Özil plays for Arsenal whilst also maintaining his position on the German national team – he has represented the country in two UEFA European Championships, as well as in two FIFA World Cups, contributing to 2014 World Cup victory. Considered by many as one of the world’s best players, Özil has won countless awards and Ballon D’Or short-listings.
He will be speaking on Tuesday, 20th February, at 5pm.